The Gitmo piece left me conflicted. I have no doubt that most of the prisoners are enemies of the US but at the same time, is it just to hold them indefinitely without trial?

The last story was actually somewhat interesting despite it being a typical feel-good puff piece. They said that a regular musical instrument costs as much as a house in that part of the country and would surely get stolen. But yet at the end of the piece, they show the kids getting a bunch of new instruments. I hope the school has good security.

the longer gitmo is open, the more dangerous it becomes as a propaganda tool for extremists, and the self-inflicted paradox we find ourselves in - they can't be tried due to interrogation methods used to extract evidence.

at this point, i'm not as concerned with how, it just needs to be closed. i can't fathom keeping the remaining prisoners locked up until they die of old age, never having seen a court room.

__________________

The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you. - David Foster Wallace

Always listen to the free audio podcast nowadays.. I get the vast majority of the info in ~22 minutes (2x, without commercials). Sometimes I skim through the Tivoed backup recording, but not often.. I think I basically FFed through even the Lambourghini segment, thinking I might watch it, but didn't.. (listened to the audio as I said though)

On Gitmo - That whole situation is a mess. Are they military POWs? Then they should be following the Geneva Convention. Are they criminals? Then they should be charged and tried. It just seems un-American to hold someone against their will unless they are charged with a crime. As much as I want to see these people fry, it just doesn't sit well with me. If another country did the same to an American citizen, we'd be screaming and protesting.

The problem now is if you charged and tried them and they were given a fair trial, I think you'd have to acquit almost all of them since they were not given due process.

On the billionaires - I was really curious who turned them down? I knew they wouldn't say, but I'm still curious I also think they kind of side stepped the question about them having too much power to decide "what is the right thing to do" because of their money. Their acts are noble, but they and we have to be careful that there are no real strings attached.

On the Paraguay story - nice human interest story, but sorry, I just didn't care.

Since O came in and pledged to close Gitmo he has found that to do that you have to figure out what to do with these people. No country wants to take them so closing Gitmo isn't so easy.

Isn't it more of a question of what WE do with them if we close Gitmo? When Obama said he wanted to close Gitmo, I remember all the "Not on our soil" protests. People don't want them in prisons in the 50 states. I say if nobody wants to take them, release them on a ship and let them figure out where to go from there. You're free, and you're in international waters. Go find a country to take you.